Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Jarvi
Decision Date | 05 February 1890 |
Parties | UNION PAC. RY. CO. v. JARVI |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Error to district court, Albany county; M. C. SAUFLEY, Judge.
Action for personal injuries by one Jarvi against the Union Pacific Railway Company. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Corlett Lacey & Riner, for plaintiff in error.
Mahoney Minehan & Smyth, for defendant in error.
OPINION
The defendant in error brought suit against the plaintiff in error, alleging that on January 15, 1886, the defendant in the court below was the owner and operator of a certain coal mine; that plaintiff below was in the employ of defendant as a miner of coal therein; that in his occupation as miner it was necessary for plaintiff to frequently enter and pass through a part of what was known as the "Main Slope" of said mine; that, while so engaged in passing through a portion of the main slope, a large rock fell from the roof upon plaintiff's leg, and so injured it that it became necessary that it be amputated; that at the time, and prior thereto, the said rock was loose, insufficiently supported, and dangerously insecure in its place in the roof; that it was the duty of the defendant to keep said main slope in good repair, and not to allow said rock to become insecure, and to furnish plaintiff with a safe place in which to perform his work as such employe; that the defendant, well knowing its condition, negligently and carelessly failed to perform its duty; and that plaintiff had no knowledge of its dangerous condition, and no reason to anticipate it, and that he was free from negligence in respect to the cause of his injuries.
The defendant answered by a general denial, and also set up in a second defense that plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was negligently at a place in the mine at a distance from the place where, by his employment, he was required to be, and a more dangerous place, without the order of defendant, and without its knowledge or consent; that, although knowing that at that time and place there were great and unusual hazards of the kind which caused his injuries, the plaintiff was not exercising reasonable or ordinary care to protect himself; and that such failure of plaintiff to exercise ordinary care contributed to the injuries.
The evidence tended to show that plaintiff was in the habit of going from his working place to the junction of the main slope and the slope or entry leading to his working place, for the purpose of obtaining cars to remove his coal; that this was a specially dangerous point, owing to the frequent falling of masses of rock, and was known to be so by said miners; that the main slope itself was dangerous, and was so known to be by the miners; that these places were also known by the superintendent and mining boss to be dangerous, but there was also evidence tending to show that the junction where the accident occurred, by blasting out the "bastard rock," had recently been made as safe as it could be reasonably made. There were "drivers" whose duty it was to remove the cars of coal, and return empty cars to the miners, placing them near to their working places, and at a point between the working and the junction, so that it would not be necessary for the miners to go to the dangerous place. There is evidence tending to show that there were enough drivers to furnish all the miners with all the cars they required, in this way, and that each miner, by waiting to have the cars brought to him, would obtain all the cars he required. There was also evidence that certain of the drivers brought the cars to the junction, and required the miners to come there for them. While at this point, for the purpose of obtaining cars, this fall of rock occurred, and plaintiff was injured. There was evidence that a rule existed prohibiting the miners from going to this point, and also that the rule had fallen into disuse, or, at least, that it was not enforced or insisted upon, and was perhaps unknown to the plaintiff. There was a verdict for plaintiff of $ 12,500, and defendant brings the case to this court.
There is a great number of errors assigned, only a part of which it will be necessary for us to consider in detail.
The plaintiff in error insists that the court erred in its charge to the jury, and also in refusing certain instructions requested by it. The charge of the court, in so far as it has reference to the negligence of the defendant or any contributory negligence of the plaintiff, was in full as follows:
This was the entire charge of the court affecting the question of negligence. Plaintiff in error requested the following instruction, which was refused by the court:
An examination of the charge of the court, as given to the jury will show that they were instructed, as to contributory...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Diamond Cattle Co. v. Clark
...be determined. The obligation of the court to give such or similar instructions in the case has often been affirmed by this court. Ry. Co. v. Jarvi, 3 Wyo. 375; Plaster Co. v. Westman, 20 Wyo. 143; Taylor Stockwell, 22 Wyo. 492; McClintock v. Ayers, (Wyo.) 253 P. 658; Justice v. Brock, 21 W......
-
Wallace v. Skinner
...... requests. (R. S. 1899, Sec. 3644; Ry. Co. v. Jarvi, . 3 Wyo. 375; Blash. Instr., 131; 11 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 158;. Maxwell Pl. & Pr. (5th Ed.), 430, ......
-
Wheelock v. Clark
...failure of counsel to request specific instructions good in law and applicable to the evidence. (Comp. Stat. 1910, Sec. 4499; U. P. R. R. Co. v. Jarvi, 3 Wyo. 375.) findings control the general verdict. (Comp. Stat. 1910, Secs. 4511, 4512.) The applicant was insured from the time of the app......
-
Horn v. State
...court shall instruct the jury as to the essential law of the case, . . .' Id., at 754. In Gardner we quoted from Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Jarvi, 3 Wyo. 375, 23 P. 398, in which opinion Justice Corn '. . . Subdivision 6, § 2553, Rev.St.Wyo., provides that in civil cases, 'before the argu......